John,

whether meeting the same orientations of an etched polarizer or same orientating of a facet of a crystal the 'identical' twins, I.e. Sharing relative to each other orientation, treated identically should not be expected to give different results. Why would they?

G,

B does the rotation which changes the vector of the spin angular momentum of Photon B. V does not do anything to Photon V, that detection system only registers what the vector of Photon V is. And it has changed from the original prepared singlet state vector to the reverse of the changed vector of Photon B. There is no synchronized "polarizer" in Vienna, the high tech polarizer is in the Bejing lab. In Vienna, the altered vector is registered by the detector which of course alters the altered vector, but the altered singlet vector has been observed and the detection alteration is superfluous. jrc

Georgi,

I take the coins from my pocket and put them on the counter and flip all the pennies so they show heads. Now all the pennies in your pocket are tails up. jrc

John,

I don't believe that. Heads up is a relation between observer and observed brought about via the experimental method or protocol. The coins in my pocket have not undergone the coin calling protocol or yet been observed. So there are of limited, fixed relative, contextual outcome states in my pocket. Isolated face outcomes are not the material coins. Beside them not being 'entangled'. Measuring B does not alter V. You are talking as if the theory was fact. Measuring B fixes what the matching measurement of V must be. That is not the same thing

That should say 'So there are no limited [etc.] outcome states in my pocket.'

Moving charge generates magnetic fields and the faster the motion, the greater the magnetism. The electric field of the photon changes fastest at the nodes and that is why magnetism peaks 90 degrees out of phase with the electric field for a photon.

Electromagnets emerge from the motion of electrons in wire loops and ferromagnets emerge from unpaired electron orbits in iron. This is why there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

Thinking more on the relative field orientations of EMr and photons. If the electric field acts out at 90 degrees to direction of travel; and the magnetic field encircles electric field at 90 degrees to direction of travel; the two fields are acting at 90 degrees to each other while taking the same wave path. Not two waves 90 degrees separated. That is a picture unlike convention. Like a boa constrictor encircling and being impaled by a porcupine.

    ...and of course, the oscillation of the electron electric field is what determines spin magnetism, not really a physical spinning charge. Note that the electron oscillates in both electric field as well as in mass, but at different frequencies. This is why it takes a spin rotation of 720 degrees to get the same spin back, not just 360 degrees.

    Georgina, that's a creative idea and would be worth fleshing out. I was browsing earlier for info on BBO crystals and there is a striking similarity. The entanglement is circular with one circle emission on the vertical plane and the other on a horizontal plane and entanglement occurs at the points of intersection of the two circles. The emission produced is conical rather than a spherical spread. The crystal element though, is made by sandwiching two Beta-Barium-Borate discs with a 90* rotation of one in relation to the other, so its still a 5mm x 1mm flat disc. So you might be onto something, there. :-) jrc

    Thanks for the link, Doc.

    I gave it a once through read, but will have to chew on it some more. Random sprinkling sounds good to me, even if we have a determinate side to reality, nothing in the universe can be assumed to always work perfectly. If Quantum Phase can be seen as cyclic across the wavelength, then a continuous change of some physical property would physically allow for a single photon to couple to both slits. jrc

    The advantage of the configuration given is that it gives the 90 degree relative orientation of fields and vector addition of fields as if one is a zero vector, as the field wave paths are the same. Not either or but both.

    Its hard to not to confuse the graphical representations with something in 3D space> I think I'm struggling with that. I have thought about representations of field strength (and curl). At least the girth of both animals is small at the head, large at the middle and small at the tail! ?? Reversal of field strength?? The animal analogy gets bizarre with inward pointing spikes and reverse coiling snake.

    Georgina,

    yeh, graphic interpretation onto a physical measurement space gets dicey. It goes topological a lot easier than 3D, and I try to keep in mind that the planar sections under the curve are representative of the measurement of inverse square law effect which is a straight line LOS. The minimum value of field intensity being coincident with the maximum of the other force effect field that results from the 90* phase shift, (I think) is indicative of there being a real cyclic rise and fall of density in the time span of any wavelength. And that can equate with acceleration (positive and negative) such that electric density reduces to maximum magnetic in the first half wavelength, then collapsing to recover electric effect density in the second half of the waveform (?). The reversing polarity of successive wavelengths is puzzling and maybe attributable to detector field reaction but I don't think that can hold up. Maybe at the head of the snake it bites the rattle on the tail of the next snake, and gets turned inside out lensing through that pinch point(?). jrc

    Electromagnetic waves, YouTube https://youtu.be/W1cTpqM9DaU Explains why in phase.

    John, I'm confusing both of us. By field reversal I was intending change of direction of the motion . Not clear sorry. I think it is not going to work combining what is with what happens. They are different pictures. I think the electric field always points out but that is based on a field from moving electrons. Maybe its different.

    Georgina,

    That's just the thing, isn't it? All of the graphics and representations are not of a hypothetical photon... they are all representations of observational measurements of interaction of the fields of both a photon and the aggregate field of a macroscopic (detector) antennae. And that interface incorporates the confused rates of change of intensities of electric and magnetic fields in the Transition Zone. Load in the particle model of the photelectric effect and the whole problem of "what is a photon"" gets profoundly confused. ( and it pays so well, eh? ) :-)

    Oh! I almost forgot. If we model a 3D photon and it has an axial rotation at all while moving at light velocity in one direction, then any point on the rotating surface would have to exceed light velocity or lag the direction of motion and drift backwards along the photon's surface.

    Dr. Agnew,

    "The photon connection between emitter and absorber seems to be at the foundation of what reality is..."

    And of course we cannot observe what that might be without absorbing a photon in mid flight. Even a semi-classical model would seem to founder on the shoals known physical laws. But superposition can be made real in a 3D model of a photon as a soloton due to the limit of light velocity. Spin angular momentum would dictate an axial rotation of a soloton and any vector of which would exceed light velocity as the vector projects perpendicular to a one dimensional axis parallelized to the direction of motion. That's wordy, but correct. Actually, in my attempts at modeling, physical rotation plays a relativistic role hypothesizing a postulate that density varies in direct inverse relation to velocity. ie: if a vector must exceed LV on a modeled surface of the soloton, then it must conversely compensate by drifting backwards to direction of mo9tion, so it physically would be in superposition. Relativistically, if it exceeds LV then it would be drifting backwards in time, so it would still be in superposition. It's operationally going forwards and backwards at the same time as long as the soloton is not slowed by a diffracting EM field or to rest by absorbsion. best jrc

    Steve Agnew, you seem to make the same general error than many considering these photons like the primordial essence and the GR. So you consider that all the forces come from these photons and their oscillations, and so you interpret even this Dark matter like this with your explaination from the gravitation and stars. Since when can you affrim this ?? a second thing also is about the TOE or GUT , are you conscious that we know nothing still and that a GUT is not possible to reach and it will be the same if we survive in 1 million years. with all my respects, you affrim things not proved. If you tell that the emissions and absorption of the photons are what is the reality and if you affirm this about the dark matter, woww for me it is more than odd . You have made the same for your antiverse , I am curious , tell us more about your general philosophy, what is the origin of the universe and why and what are the foundamental objects , you can explain with the strings, points and the geometrical algebras and photons and why and what is the proof, you can even begin with a BB.

    to be frank , I have difficulties to understand how it is possible that the majority of thinkers consider just this BB and photons oscillating with this GR , we have evolved in 100 years of relativity and hop gocus pocus the majority concludes that they understand the generality of the universe and its philosophy. Is it a hidden camera, we have deeper logic to add to this puzzle, and the photons alone like primoridial essence is total non sense for me. They are just photons , a tool for the universe and the luminiferous spacetime is just a part of the puzzle, so what is this prison of thought ? we are youngs at this universal scale, and how is it possible that we conclude these things about the gut, the toe, the photons, the strings, and others ? the universe is more complex than this and has so many secrets to show us. The fact to consider just the photons and their oscillations vibrations, absorptions, emissions or this or that is more than reductor considering our limitations. We can compare our knowledges at this quantum scale to our knowledges at this comsological scale, we have more than 10000billions of galaxies, and even our nearest planet we don t know it lol , it could be well if the thinkers are a little bit less persuaded to know how acts this universe because it becomes odd. We are not in a competition of knowledges, we search answers and we cannot affirm unknowns and we cannot conclude due to these limitations.